Civilian Casualties

Jews and the ethics of war.

Attacked by a barrage of rockets from Gaza that killed several, injured many and terrorized millions, Israel responded with airstrikes against military targets in Gaza. Radar guided missiles attacked terror cells, rockets launchers, bomb factories and Hamas government installations.1

The difference between the terrorist attacks and the Israeli retaliation is that the terrorists deliberately aimed for civilian centers seeking to kill innocent people whereas Israeli planes dropped leaflets encouraging residents to vacate the area of their intended targets. The terrorists seek out innocents, Israel works to save them, but every so often a target is missed and an innocent civilian is killed.

The death of an innocent is tragic. The heart trembles at the sight of little children, bodies broken and lives snuffed out. The Israeli military doesn’t target women and children, but their death is an inescapable consequence of military action. There is no way to ensure the safety of civilians when the theater of war is a crowded city. Surely responsibility lies with the enemy who fights from behind cradle and skirt, but the question remains, is it ethical for an army to pursue a war in the presence of an innocent population?

Our hearts demand that we stop such wars, but our heads tell us that withdrawal would enable the terrorists to terrorize with impunity. We are torn between duty and empathy, compassion for our children and compassion for the enemies’ children. What to do?

Fear and Concern

We are not the first to worry about casualties in war. When Jacob was informed that Esau had raised an army and was marching against him, he feared and he worried. Our sages explained that he feared for his own life, but he worried about being forced into a war that would require him to take another’s life.2

Rabbinical commentary on this explanation abounds, but most agree that Jacob was not concerned with taking Esau’s life. Esau had forfeited his right to life by marching against his brother. Talmudic law is clear on this point, if someone rises against you, rise up and kill him first. If you threaten the life of another you forfeit your own right to life. Jacob was concerned about collateral damage. He worried that others might be killed in the heat of battle.3

That he worried tells us that our heritage bleeds for the loss of innocent life. That this concern did not deter him from preparing for war tells us that notwithstanding the horror of civilian casualties we must take up arms when war is foisted upon us. Otherwise, our own children are at risk.

This is not to say that enemy civilians are fair game in war. Those who don’t offer the enemy aid and succor are not our enemies and we must make every effort to spare them, but there is no religious or legal statute in the world that prohibits military activity likely to result in unintended, unavoidable and unforeseeable civilian casualties. That would render every war effort including defensive ones obsolete.4

In peacetime, the causation of collateral damage is a murderous and prosecutable offense. For example, we have peacetime license to kill those who pursue us with deadly intent, but we have no license to cause collateral damage by killing the innocent human shields behind whom the pursuer ducks.5 But wartime conditions are different; they don’t allow for peacetime luxury. If war could only be prosecuted with guarantees against civilian casualties, no country would be able to defend itself in time of war and all aggression would de facto be rewarded. The laws of war are not derived from the peacetime law of the pursuer, which is why Jacob went to war despite his vehement distaste.6

Grieving for Enemy Combatants

Abraham, whose heart melted with love at the sight of a stranger, went to war against a coalition of four countries to save his nephew Lot. When he returned from the war God appeared to him and said, “Fear not Abraham, I shall protect you, your reward is exceedingly great.” Our sages taught that Abraham feared that he had forfeited his virtue by prosecuting the war. He knew he was right to save Lot, but was he right to save him at the expense of human life?7

Abraham took this even further than Jacob. Jacob was only worried about killing innocent bystanders, Abraham worried about killing the enemy’s soldiers and God had to comfort and reassure him. Those whom you killed, God said, deserved to be killed. They forfeited their lives when they took up arms against Lot.8 As our sages put it, they are thorns in the king’s garden, the king would have hired laborers to weed out the thorns, now that you did it for him, you need not worry. On the contrary, your reward is exceedingly great for you saved the victim from their abusers.

Abraham was the first Jew to take up arms in a just cause. It broke his heart to do so and when he returned from war he mourned the loss of his innocence. He was devastated by what his enemies had made of him.

Today, the Vatican seeks to teach us moral values by admonishing Israel for killing babies.9 Cardinal Ravasi ought to remember who he is talking to. Jews are the people of the book, who taught the world about sanctity of life. To the Jew, every life is precious, even the lives of our enemies.

Jews don’t perpetuate war because life holds no value. Jews perpetuate war precisely because life has value and must be protected. When war is foisted on us, we cry every time our enemies make killers of us. Abraham was devastated by the death of his enemy. Jacob worried about killing innocents. Yet, when war was foisted upon them, they sprang into action without hesitation. God endorsed their actions even as He understood their concerns. “Fear not Abraham, I shall be your shield.”

We too tremble when life is lost on either side of war. Sadly, Jews know grief better than any other nation; we know what it means to lose a loved one. It is not for lack of love that we undertake war, but in spite of love. War is not pursued with intent to kill, but with intent to save. We don’t undertake war to kill innocents or even combatants. We undertake war to reduce bloodshed on all sides.

On November 21, 2012, Egypt and the US brokered a cease fire agreement between Israel and Hamas after eight days of hostilities.

Genesis 32:8 as elucidated in Bereshit Rabbah 76:7 and quoted by Rashi in his commentary on the verse.

See Sifsei Chachamim, Maskil Ledavid and Gur Aryeh ad loc.

Contemporary Halachic Problems III, Rabbi J. David Bleich, p.277.

This, with the caveat, that the human shield is not a willng accomplice. See Amud Hayemini, Rabbi Shaul Israeli, 16:3-4.

Another difference is that though bystanders are required to kill the pursuer in peacetime they cannot be compelled to risk their lives in the act. In war however, countries have the right to draft young men and women and force them to risk their lives against their will.

Genesis 15:1 elucidated in Yalkut Shimoni Lech Lecha 16 and quoted by Rashi in his commentary on the verse.

See commentary of R. Ovadya Seforno and R. Meyer Malbim ad loc. See Gur Aryeh for a slightly different angle.

On November 21, 2012, Cardinal Ravasi, president of the Vatican Council for Culture, condemned Israel for Killing Babies.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 11

(8)
joe,
November 30, 2012 11:05 PM

GARBAGE

What a load of garbarge, It was Israel who broke the truce and this is not the first time either. The Rabbi is a liar as he must surely know peace is not iwhat Israel wants. The whole wrld knows that. Israel is the aggressor.

(7)
ruth housman,
November 29, 2012 4:41 PM

time for a new Chapter and a new set of Verses

This story is ancient, and so filled with sorrow, on both sides, as innocents do get killed, inadvertently, when caught in the crossfire, of all wars, even if that war seems to be the forcing of the hand of humane people, to protect others, for the greater good. And it is always costly in human terms, as no blood that is shed, is not a human being, a part of this vast Creation, and it is said, we're all here, for a reason. Divine Providence. That's a word that goes with, as I have learned, not just being Jewish but being Arab, because they teach, if not for Allah, even water would not form from hydrogen and oxygen. One God, many names.
We must defend our children, and in defense of Israel, it's humane and deeply significant they leaflet to warn. I don't think any Jew who cares about humanity, doesn't suffer at the deaths of innocents, an inevitable consequence as you say, of WAR, RAW WAR. The wounds are painful, and wound is also a curious word because it's also as yarn to what is wound, and what is wrapped and unwrapped. As yarn is also to story.
Did God write us all into a story, that is deeply about words? We have our ancient wheel of letters and weal for wounds. If so, I must believe ultimately this story is about LOVE. And angst, is the suffering of soul in searching for answers, and this, ultimately, for us all, a journey of soul, the path being in empathy itself. I believe there IS an answer, but we all, meaning all Arab nations must come to the table, and make this decision, together. It's a Solution based on words... as Solution is for irrigate, and a gate, that opens to the Paradise of another Eden. I have seen the desert in bloom.

(6)
Allen Z. Hertz,
November 28, 2012 6:12 PM

Proportionality and self-defense

"Proportionality" does not require a balance between Israel and Hamas dead or deeds of Hamas and Israel Rather, legally there must be proportionality between what the IDF actually does and what militarily would be reasonably required to stop the firing of Hamas rockets. For example, if the IDF would be reasonably able to stop the firing of Hamas rockets via measures short of carpet bombing, the IDF are lobliged to use those less drastic means. International law does not require Israel to accept the firing of rockets at its civilians and soldiers, because measures to prevent that firing would likely cause some collateral civilian injury and death in Gaza. Here the reasoning is obvious: Israel has to choose between (A) some Israel deaths (civilian and military) from Hamas missiles; and (B) some Hamas deaths (civilian and military) from Israel preventive measures. In this context, Israel has to opt for (B) to prevent (A). Any other decision would privilege the lives of Arabs in Gaza over those of civilians and soldiers in Israel. No rule of morality or law says that a State is precluded from using force in self-defense, which is truly a fundamental principle of morality, natural law, and public international law. The State has a moral and legal right to use force in self-defense, even though that recourse to force is likely to cause some collateral civilian injury and death. With respect to Gaza, Israel acts not by way of retaliation or punishment, but for prevention, i.e. to stop the Hamas missiles and thus to prevent more Israel civilians and soldiers from being killed. Nor can the Hamas war crime of intentionally targeting Israel civilians be justified by an alleged Palestinian right of "resistance," i.e. an alleged right to wage a war of national liberation against Israel. Even if we accept this false hypothesis, that right would not extend to the intentional, indiscriminate targeting of Israel's civilian population, which would still remain a war crime.

(5)
Hanan,
November 27, 2012 12:39 AM

Jewish History

I wonder what an internet post would look like 2000 years ago. Yes, Jews TODAY deliberately want to save innocent lives as much as possible, but was that always the way? Surely anyone of us can open up a Tanach and see the brutal wars by the Israelites against cities and had no problem decimating the population of innocent women and children. There is no attempt to spare a "living soul." Have we forget about psalm 137 that ends"...he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." What about Amalek? Sure you can make a case for the initial amalek and what they did, but what about their descendants? The Torah specifically makes the case that the punishment vetted to Amalek is what happened in the desert. This means that potential future generations of Amalek, including babies that had nothing to do with the initial crime are supposed to be punished.
And here is where the rubber meats the road: It's one thing to have collateral damage when one is going after the enemy, it's quite another to purposely AIM for innocents. Objectively speaking, would we not consider the Israelites of the past as repulsive in their war tactics as Hamas is today?
The question is this and I leave it up the readers. What is the TRUE Jewish value? Is it what Israel is doing now, — that may be more of an influence of westernized notions of morals — or, what our scripture has basically said we did in the past?

Rachel,
November 28, 2012 7:23 PM

It is a Mitzvah to wipe out the memory of Amalek

The commandment to kill every last Amalekite was given directly by God during the time when we had prophets. We cannot compare our world view to Hashem's. The result of King Saul's misguided "compassion" for Amalekite King Agog was that Agog fathered the ancestor of Haman, who wanted to be the Hitler of his day.
Israel has lost way too many soldiers who put their own lives in jeopardy trying to avoid killing the civilians behind whom the terrorists hide. It's the sponsibility of the Arab side to protect their own cilivians by not implanting rocket launchers in civilian areas and not cowering behind women and children.
It is our responsibility to protect our people first. We are not targeting their civilians but we should not sacrifice Jewish lives to avoid collateral damage of their own making.

Hanan,
November 30, 2012 12:39 AM

Missing the point

Rachel,
Thank you for the reply, but you missed the point. It's not about Israel protecting their soldiers first and Arabs second, it's about the Jewish values within our scripture that direct us to PURPOSELY AIM at innocent people. Were all canaanites including the children guilty? You do realize that the Israelites went in to kill all the children as well. Yes, today we don't target civilians....but we most certainly did in the past. It was quite brutal. So my question still stands regarding Jewish values. Is it the values of today where we try to avoid civilian deaths even if the civilians are on the enemy side or do we butcher them all like in our Jewish scripture?
As for Amalek, I am well aware of where the directive came from, but you do realize the directive is technically still intact. The fact that we can't recognize an Amalek today does not diminish the fact that you must kill an Amalek even a baby because of the crimes of its ancestors....not due to the crimes that the child has committed. Should we go and kill all germans today for the crimes of their fathers?
Also, Agog fathering the ancestor of Haman is Midrash. It's not there to be taken as literal fact.

(4)
Cathryn,
November 26, 2012 3:03 AM

It's like police chases

It's like police chases. In Queensland (Australia), police aren't allowed to conduct a chase of a stolen or erratically-driven car in a built-up area because it will endanger others. But then the criminals involved get away with their crime (for the time being). It's hard to know what to do.

(3)
rut,
November 26, 2012 2:41 AM

Jews, Ehtic of War vs Vatican comments

Have the Vatican commentator read the history of their church? When all my descendants were massacred, in violation of the teachings of their god? "To give the other chick." Violence against anyone was not the teaching of the Jewish prophet. He wanted to bring the knowledge of the Eternal G-d, blessed be He. In his own words, and I quote: "To be a real child of the Almighty G-d, one will need to be born again." Maybe the Vatican should ask the Almighty, blessed be He, to create in him a clean heart, and new spirit. The Almighty's beautiful eyes, and ears are everywhere. If Yisrael has been attacked, all will have to respond for their blood. The time is near! If we really read TaNack, the Bible, and ask the Eternal G-d for wisdom and understanding, maybe we could see that the only people who have kept records of TRUTH are the Jewish sages. Should we not ask ourselves: Why did three religions have come out of Torah? Why have they distorted the teachings, when the Word of the Almighty is not supposed to be changed? Maybe if we ask the Eternal, blessed be He, with a sincere heart, if one truly believe in Him, why the Jewish people are still standing after so much evil against them have been committed throughout the ages. Then He, in His Infinite compassion will answer. Because I, Anochi, Anochi, love them through Abraham my friend for ever! Yisrael, do not be afraid. Am Yisrael Chai!!!!

(2)
susanne woyciechowicz,
November 25, 2012 4:33 PM

more to be learned from Jacob meeting Esau after more than14 years

I believe in the portion we just read this last Shabbat, Jacob prepared to meet Esau by sending out "shalichot" ahead of him bearing gifts of sheep and goats for his brother. Maybe there is a lesson here that we need to be more creative in our endeavor to avoid war and sooth enemies!

Dvirah,
November 26, 2012 4:47 PM

Not By Appeasment

Susanne, your suggestion would be viable if we were dealing with reasonable people who had a true grievance. Sadly, we are dealing with fanatics whose opposition to Israel's existance is not rational. Also, "gifts" - aka concessions - have been made in the past with no effect (remember the withdrawal from Gush Katif?). So yes, we need to be creative, but not appeasing.

(1)
Alan S.,
November 25, 2012 11:11 AM

Most Christians are moral and ethically fine individuals. This said, I have always found it baffling when any religious Christian governing body attempts to dictate morals to the Jewish people. Their history make their moral pronouncements laughable.

We have a canistel (or eggfruit) tree our backyard which we’d like to get rid of. We do not eat its fruit, and the fruit and leaves make a constant mess. I haven’t found anyone who is interested in its fruit – even to take it from us for free. I would like to replace it with an orange tree (we live in Miami). Is there any problem doing so?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah actually writes specifically that we may not cut down fruit trees (Deuteronomy 20:19-20). From this the Sages learn a more general principle that one may not purposelessly waste or destroy anything of value – food, good utensils, clothes, etc. (see e.g. Talmud Baba Kama 91b, Shabbat 140b).

The Talmud (Baba Kama 91-92) distinguishes that whenever there is a legitimate reason, one may cut down a fruit tree – if it damages other trees or plants, if it’s not productive and not worth its upkeep, if it’s more valuable for the wood, etc. The commentators include in this dispensation when ones needs the space the tree is growing on (Rosh Baba Kama 8:15).

There is, however, a frightening line in the Talmud there which makes people much more hesitant to rely on the above leniency. Rabbi Chanina stated that his son died young as a punishment for his cutting a fig tree before its time. Thus apart from the legal issue of destroying a productive tree, this law appears to carry with it severe Divine retribution.

Most authorities explain that this punishment is incurred only if a person cuts down a fruit tree without legitimate reason, but there is a minority opinion that it is incurred even if the tree is cut with good reason.

As a result, even in cases where a legitimate reason applies, people generally take an extra precaution of first selling the tree to a non-Jew, and having a non-Jew do the actual cutting. (The entire prohibition does not apply to non-Jews.) Your case is also better in that you are cutting one fruit tree to plant another, more productive one. Even with all of this, it’s preferable, if possible, to leave a part of the original tree intact.

In 1942, Hitler devised a plan for a Museum of Judaism, to remember the dead Jewish religion, culture and people. Millions of Jewish treasures -- Torah scrolls, ritual objects, books and art -- were looted by the Nazis and taken to warehouses. In Czechoslovakia, the objects were taken to the Jewish Museum in Prague, where the Jews themselves were forced to sort, label, and pack the items for use in the Nazi's future museum. After the war, many of these items were recovered, including thousands of Torah scrolls and nearly one million books. These were distributed to Jewish communities worldwide, as a living testimony to the indestructibility of the Jewish people.

One who humiliates another person in public ... even though he may be a scholar and may have done many good deeds, nevertheless loses his portion in the eternal world (Ethics of the Fathers 3:15).

Imagine a situation: you have a fine home, a well-paying job, a comfortable car, and a substantial retirement annuity. If you do a single thoughtless act, you will lose everything you have worked to achieve: home, job, car, and savings. What kind of precautions would you take to avoid even the remotest possibility of incurring such a disaster? Without doubt, you would develop an elaborate system of defenses to assure that this event would never occur.

The Talmud tells us that everything we have worked for during our entire lives can be forfeited in one brief moment of inconsideration: we embarrass another person in public. Perhaps we may say something insulting or make a demeaning gesture. Regardless of how it occurs, the Talmud states that if we cause another person to turn pale because of being humiliated in public, we have committed the equivalent of bloodshed.

Still, we allow our tongues to wag so easily. If we give serious thought to the words of the Talmud, we would exercise the utmost caution in public and be extremely sensitive to other people's feelings, lest an unkind word or degrading gesture deprive us of all our spiritual merits.

Today I shall...

try to be alert and sensitive to other people's feelings and take utmost caution not to cause anyone to feel humiliated.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...